• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, has lost his marbles?

icehorse

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Revoltingest said:
No, we get much rain.
Wells don't run dry.
Water tables are stable.
So worrying about how much water cows drink is
like worrying about how much air they breath.

Arid areas would be another matter.
(Regarding water, not air.)
Click to expand...

And all this time I took you for someone who could see the big picture. Sigh. These last couple of posts of yours are depressing.
 
Shad

Shad

Veteran Member
icehorse said:
The Canadian beef dude's article was meant for folks like you, so that you could sleep better at night. So they start off with an actual fact and then do pages of obfuscatory song and dance to explain that crucial fact away. And you fell for it. It's similar to when Dow Chemicals tells us "without chemicals, life itself would be impossible". It's corporate marketing schtick and you drink it up, ha.
Click to expand...

Hilarious. You didn't read your own source which refuted your criticism. Yet I am the one that has issues. Hilarious. Yet here you are linking the source, not I, so it was made for people like yourself as you fell for it right? After all you never posted any disclaimer until I pointed out your source made you look dumb. Impressive delusion you have. Now try reading your source or are you incapable of reading more than 5 words?

Hilarious. Now you are denouncing your own source? Also you are cherry-picking from the source now. You also need evidence for your claims. So really your point is just another BS excuses to avoid that your own source made you look dumb. Keep making up excuses son.

Your ignorance of the topic and your deflection when you proved yourself wrong have been noted. Try again son.

So tell me, why are our aquifers being depleted?
Click to expand...

Humans and our consumption from personal to industrial has out paced the natural replenishment. Now as per your linked stats Humans are a large issue than cattle. I can use that for anti-immigration now that I think about it.
 
Last edited:
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
icehorse said:
And all this time I took you for someone who could see the big picture. Sigh. These last couple of posts of yours are depressing.
Click to expand...
The big picture is....
Raising cattle in some areas doesn't make sense.
But it's perfectly wonderful in others. It's sustainable,
cost effective, & green. (Even AOC eats hamburgers.)

I expect I'll be depressing to all who feel an urgent need to upend
society, & reorganize things in a rush to fight AGW at all costs.
I reject calls that the world will end in 12 years, & that we must
ignore what is practical in favor of extreme measures.

I want to live in a world where I can eat hamburgers, take a walk
in my woods, drive a car, & have a nice big home. A world where
those things are wrong, is a world which needs a different solution,
ie, population reduction.
 
icehorse

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Revoltingest said:
I want to live in a world where I can eat hamburgers, take a walk
in my woods, drive a car, & have a nice big home. A world where
those things are wrong, is a world which needs a different solution,
ie, population reduction.
Click to expand...

We're agreed on the need for population reduction.

At the same time, we're always going to need fresh water and topsoil. As it stands now, raising livestock to be eaten is consuming fresh water and topsoil at unsustainable rates. There is a pretty simple solution to this problem however. Livestock producers should be charged the actual cost to society for the natural resources they use. (As it stands now, they get subsidies, which is backwards.) If livestock producers had to pay the true costs for producing animal protein, then a pound of beef might cost $40. So you could still have your hamburger, but you'd be paying the actual cost. As it stands now, some of my tax dollars are going to subsidize the cost of producing your hamburgers, and I'm not okay with that. In addition, the hamburger you're eating is a part of what's destroying our ecosystem, and I'm also not okay with that.

I would urge you to read "The Food Revolution", by John Robbins. It is extremely well researched and loaded with citations.
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
icehorse said:
We're agreed on the need for population reduction.

At the same time, we're always going to need fresh water and topsoil. As it stands now, raising livestock to be eaten is consuming fresh water and topsoil at unsustainable rates. There is a pretty simple solution to this problem however. Livestock producers should be charged the actual cost to society for the natural resources they use. (As it stands now, they get subsidies, which is backwards.) If livestock producers had to pay the true costs for producing animal protein, then a pound of beef might cost $40. So you could still have your hamburger, but you'd be paying the actual cost. As it stands now, some of my tax dollars are going to subsidize the cost of producing your hamburgers, and I'm not okay with that. In addition, the hamburger you're eating is a part of what's destroying our ecosystem, and I'm also not okay with that.

I would urge you to read "The Food Revolution", by John Robbins. It is extremely well researched and loaded with citations.
Click to expand...
Let's remove agricultural subsidies, & the chips will fall where they will.
 
ChristineM

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
At the risk of going totally off topic, when i read this thread title i immediately thought of Patric Moore the somewhat eccentric british astronomer who died a few years ago.

Patrick Moore - Wikipedia
PatrickMooreREX_228x336.jpg
 
UpperLimits

UpperLimits

Active Member
Revoltingest said:
Even if we in Ameristan put OAC in charge to radically alter society,
we're a small part of the world. Our effect would be small.
Would other countries emulate our eschewing cars & air travel, our
rebuilding every building for greenness? Most couldn't afford it.
But if we do practical things which they too could adopt, so could they.
Click to expand...

Ameristan?? LOL

Well, we in Canuckistan can do far less than you, yet our government has already embarked on this radical lunacy.

As for numbers, USA accounts for around 14% of world global emissions. (Last I checked.) Whereas we in the north account for less than 1% WGE.

In fact, if one takes real facts into account (Such as our forests, which seem to operate remarkably similar to the Amazon basin as far as carbon emissions are concerned.) we are already not only net zero, but actually quite in the negative. (Roughly 15-16%) People should really be paying US for their carbon emissions. (But, like that's ever gonna happen in this ecofreak world...)
 
UpperLimits

UpperLimits

Active Member
Revoltingest said:
A Preview of What's to Come: The Story of an Alaskan Village That Will Soon Be Underwater
Click to expand...
Interesting article. Thank you.

Do you suppose that being built on a river delta (sand, silt, etc) might have anything at all to do with the lands overall stability? They're on the coast. Is there any continental subduction going on? Did they even bother to look for other possible causes? Or was it just convenient to scream, "Climate change!!"

There's a meme floating around the internet that shows a picture of a dock in Australia. It shows the dock in 2016 and the same dock in 1816. Water hasn't went up an inch in 200 years.

Many people aren't aware, but the ocean isn't exactly level. If an ocean current is slowed down, the resulting backlog will raise the water levels in that area. This can impact the shoreline if it's close enough. The strait is a rather narrow part of the ocean, so it's not hard to see how a change in current flow might back up onto land at that point. Sunspots and a change in the wobble of the earth are possible explanations here, too. That 3 rivers dam project in China is said to be contributing to local earthquakes and a change in the earths wobble. Melting glaciers might just be the least of your concerns.
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
UpperLimits said:
Interesting article. Thank you.

Do you suppose that being built on a river delta (sand, silt, etc) might have anything at all to do with the lands overall stability? They're on the coast. Is there any continental subduction going on? Did they even bother to look for other possible causes? Or was it just convenient to scream, "Climate change!!"

There's a meme floating around the internet that shows a picture of a dock in Australia. It shows the dock in 2016 and the same dock in 1816. Water hasn't went up an inch in 200 years.

Many people aren't aware, but the ocean isn't exactly level. If an ocean current is slowed down, the resulting backlog will raise the water levels in that area. This can impact the shoreline if it's close enough. The strait is a rather narrow part of the ocean, so it's not hard to see how a change in current flow might back up onto land at that point. Sunspots and a change in the wobble of the earth are possible explanations here, too. That 3 rivers dam project in China is said to be contributing to local earthquakes and a change in the earths wobble. Melting glaciers might just be the least of your concerns.
Click to expand...
I'm watching.
We'll see what happens to shorelines.
 
fantome profane

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
UpperLimits said:
There's a meme floating around the internet that shows a picture of a dock in Australia. It shows the dock in 2016 and the same dock in 1816. Water hasn't went up an inch in 200 years.
Click to expand...
99 % of the world’s scientists vs a meme you saw on the internet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top